No, it's just wrong. After I post this I will go and fix it. You are probably aware that you could fix it yourself, if you wanted to. Personally, I often make mistakes when writing on a computer due to editing part of a sentence and forgetting that something else needs to be changed, or through what I suppose is lack of coordination between several parts of my brain. Wikipedia is interesting. It is surprisingly reliable on facts, but it does rely on editors correcting each others' work. There is no gatekeeper doing copy editing on submissions. With regard to use of English in Wikipedia, it is not bad, but it is not at the same quality level as a print encyclopedia or a major newspaper or magazine. Wikipedia is very international, and it's quite common to get edits from editors who are probably not native English speakers. Wikipedia also has a very interesting policy on US vs British English, which is that there is no attempt to impose uniformity within Wikipedia--the English Wikipedia uses both styles--but that each individual article is supposed to be consistent, and that a page with an "established" US or British usage is not to be edited simply to change it to the other usage. Now it says: "Bone black and ivory black are artists' pigments which have been in use since historic times--both by old masters like Rembrandt and Velázquez, and more modern painters such as Manet and Picasso."

I agree with Paul it does sound a little odd. Also.... historic as an adjective means a very important and memorable event in history. historical as an adjective can describe anything to do with history.

I agree with you, it sounds odd. More than that really, I wouldn't say it is correct. 'Which have been used...' is what I would have written. 'Have been in use...' is also OK. The bit about 'historic times' also sounds a bit like it was written by someone not native in English.

To say, in this small context text, „are in use since since historic times“ sounds perfectly correct to me, and I’m a native English speaker, but „have been“ would have also sounded correct too. I can’t answer why, or if the first sentence is technically wrong, but you’d have to check with an English grammarian to ascertain the difference. Either way, my feeling has always been: „Don’t sweat the small stuff in language.“ If you’re that good at the language to focus on triviality you probably know the answer already. But, if a native speaker says it sounds fine, move on to more important things, otherwise you’re just wasting your time when there are so many other things to do that are much more productive in perfecting your English skills.